Before we enter upon public business, Deputy Gilbert Lynch desires to make a personal explanation.
DEPUTY'S PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
On reading the newspaper reports of yesterday's debate I find that I am reported as using words which I sincerely regret. On looking at the Official Report I find that there is some difference between the report in the newspapers and that report. The Official Report of my speech says:—
"The Executive are like mariners who have lost their rudder and who are sailing out on a sea of passion seeking for blood and revenge. I am afraid from their examples yesterday they are even prepared to endanger the destinies of this State in order to satisfy that revenge."
I sincerely hope the House will take into consideration the intense feeling that was in this House yesterday during the discussion and accept my humble withdrawal.
In regard to the events of yesterday, I desire on behalf of my Party to make a short statement. We felt very acutely the allegation of the Minister for Education that we were trying to make "the biggest capital we could" out of the event of some Sundays ago, the inference being, as we took it, that all our protestations of sympathy were hypocritical and insincere and that the assassination of Kevin O'Higgins was being used by us for party advantage. That inference, which, I think, was a natural one, we resent emphatically. We enter our absolute denial of it and protest against it. I want to say, further, that when we are charged with shirking our responsibilities and washing our hands of any possible consequences of any act that we are required to undertake, or any action which is the consequence of our duties as Deputies, we spurn and denounce that charge as unwarranted and without the slightest shadow of foundation.
It is a legitimate Parliamentary statement to make, but it has become the habit of Ministers to make such statements in regard to this Party. We have our responsibilities here and we have endeavoured, in the last five years, to act up to those responsibilities. We have never shirked the issue and we shall never shirk the issue. If the responsibility comes to us, we shall accept it. If the responsibility for the government of this country comes to us, we shall accept it, either alone or in association with the Farmers, the Independents, or the National League. Or we will support any of these elements in forming a Government and give them general support. We will, if necessary, endeavour to carry on the business of this country, if in the position of a Government, without the powers which are sought in this Public Safety Bill. We are not going to shirk any responsibility.
I propose to take the business in the following order——
Is the President going to withdraw the statement made by the Minister for Education and himself yesterday?
I am indicating the order in which I propose to take the business to-day.
Is the President going to make any withdrawal?
I propose to take Vote No. 1 first.
Is the President going to make any withdrawal of the statement which was made yesterday?
After No. 1 I propose to take Item No. 2.
SEVERAL DEPUTIES
Withdraw! withdraw!
After No. 2 I propose to take——
Is the President going to make any withdrawal or apology to the House?
Certainly not, after the statement I have just listened to. After No. 2 I propose to take No. 4, and then No. 3.
LABOUR DEPUTIES
Withdraw!
Would you, A Cheinn Comhairle, indicate to us the order in which the business is to be taken, as we find it very difficult to hear here.
The order of business, I understand, will be No. 1, 2, 4 and 3. The first business, therefore, is Vote No. 18, which will be considered in Committee on Finance.
I move——
SEVERAL DEPUTIES
Withdraw! withdraw!
Deputies will have to be quite clear that if a statement is made by any Deputy in the House which, in the judgment of the Chair, is out of order, the Chair calls upon that Deputy to withdraw that statement and he must comply. If the statement made is not out of order and is not withdrawn, there is no remedy. The business now must be allowed to proceed. The President is in order in endeavouring to proceed with the business.
If he withdraws the remark.
I move that a sum ——
andMORRISSEY: Withdraw.
That a sum not exceeding——
SEVERAL DEPUTIES
Withdraw the remark.
The President will have to withdraw the statement that was made yesterday.
I must request Deputy Morrissey to obey the ruling of the Chair and to allow the President to proceed.
I am not going to sit here under the accusation that we were trying to make capital out of the death of Kevin O'Higgins. I am not going to sit here under that charge, and I have had as much respect for the Chair for the last five years as any member of the House. I am not going to lie down under that lying, foul accusation. No more foul or false accusation could be hurled at any Deputy or any party or any person in this country.
I move:—
"That a sum not exceeding £10,000 be granted to defray the charge——"
SEVERAL DEPUTIES
Withdraw!
Withdraw that lying and foul accusation.
I will have to name Deputy Morrissey for disobedience, except he is prepared to obey the ruling of the Chair. There is no way that I can see out of the difficulty, and the business must be transacted. I am sorry that Deputies are not prepared to allow the business to be transacted without further disturbance. I feel that the solution of the difficulty which arose yesterday is not for me to find.
Agreed! You have always been perfectly fair.
I think the solution might possibly have been found to-day had the statement made by the Minister for Education been taken alone and without reference to the other matters mentioned in Deputy Johnson's statement. I think it would have been possible, under these conditions, to have had a satisfactory solution of the difficulty that arose yesterday as between the Minister for Education and the Deputies of the Labour Party. If that particular difficulty had been alone adverted to, I think, in honour of the memory of the late Vice-President, a solution could have been found.
His colleagues should honour his memory.
It is unfortunate that we have had two completely different things entangled. If nothing can be done by way of solution I shall regret it, but I shall not be able to remedy the difficulty.
There is on the Order Paper a motion dealing with a grant. It would be quite impossible for this Party to have anything to say regarding that motion under the implication that we were making political capital out of the assassination of Kevin O'Higgins. The opportunity was given to the Minister for Education——
It was expected that he would have made a withdrawal, but he did not do so.
If left to himself, he would.
The President yesterday associated himself emphatically and publicly with the statement of the Minister for Education. When this Party left the House in indignant protest, the President, repeating by epithet what he has frequently alleged in public, said that we were cowards and afraid to face responsibilities. We are not going to assist in the conduct of business in this House by the Persident or the Minister for Education until that allegation against us of dishonour, insincerity and hypocrisy is withdrawn.
There are two different allegations. One allegation is that the death of the Vice-President was being used by a particular Party for the purpose of making political capital. That allegation stands by itself. The other accusation to which Deputy Johnson has alluded is in my judgment, on a wholly different footing. If these statements are to be taken at all, I think they should be taken separately. We are accustomed, both here and in the country, to considerable latitude in public speaking. We are accustomed to charge and counter-charge in political matters. The charge that particular people are washing their hands of responsibility has been made a not inconsiderable number of times both here and elsewhere. That is a matter which, in my view, can be resolved by speech and counter-speech and in other ways. The other allegation is quite different. I think if Deputy Johnson would address himself to that question and that question alone, it might be solved. But I understand him now to be asking for the withdrawal of two separate and distinct statements. I may, perhaps, be going outside my proper function, but, in my judgment, the two matters are wholly different.
I want to make your mind, A Chinn Comhairle, quite easy on that matter. I recognise quite well that it is within the competence of any member of the House to make allegations with reference to responsibility against a Party or an individual in connection with public affairs. I do not treat that in the same light as the other allegation, but, as there was no attempt at or sign of withdrawal of one allegation, I considered it right and proper that I should make the position of this Party clear on both those matters.
Should there not be a withdrawal of all allegations on both sides? Nobody has done more for the good repute and honour of the Dáil in the past than Deputy Johnson. Deputy Johnson yesterday allowed himself, in a moment of passion, to violate the rules of order by making allegations which he did not—I followed his statement closely—express any regret for. The Minister for Education made clear yesterday that he did not consider the sympathy of the Labour Party in the tragedy that occurred a fortnight ago insincere. Perhaps he would repeat that to-day. I think that both sides should express their regret for the incident yesterday, which reduced the Dáil to the level of Chambers which have been less fortunate. If that were done, I think we could get on with the business. I know that the repute of the Dáil is dear to Deputy Johnson, and it is dear, too, to the country. It is not good for the country, and it is not good for us to go on in this kind of way. Cannot both sides express regret and let us get on with the business we are called here to do?
There is one consideration which should be borne in mind in this matter. A considerable number of statements were made in the course of the debate on Tuesday and Wednesday. Some of these statements have not been withdrawn. A Parliamentary assembly cannot work on the basis that members cannot make charges without afterwards withdrawing them. That simply cannot be done.
People must have liberty to make political charges; but there is a certain kind of charge in a certain kind of atmosphere that should not be made. I think Deputy Lynch's statement yesterday was very unfortunate, and I think he is to be congratulated upon having withdrawn it.
What the other side will not do.
The statement made by Deputy Hogan (Clare), not quite of the same nature, regarding the Minister for Industry and Commerce, was that instead of a lust for humanitarianism he had a lust for blood. That, perhaps, was merely made for the purpose of contrasting two particular words. Might it not, in all the circumstances, be better left unsaid and, having been said, might it not be better withdrawn? The statement of the Minister for Education with regard to making political capital out of the assassination of the Vice-President did not, in my judgment, express exactly what the Minister for Education meant and should not now, I think, be entangled in any other statement made by the President or anybody else and should not be connected with any statement that the Labour Party are not prepared to accept their responsibilities. I feel, not for the sake of the Minister for Education, not for the sake of Deputy Johnson or the Labour Party, but in honour of the memory of the late Vice-President, the particular statement made about his assassination, and the incident arising out of it, might be now forgotten.
Possibly had Deputy Johnson not intervented with what I consider, with the President, a statement that was very unfortunate and that completely queered the pitch, this incident that has occurred to-day would not have occurred. Had the withdrawal on the other side been not merely the one unfortunate statement—the Deputy made a more unfortunate statement afterwards when he accused some members of the Executive Council of murder—had that been withdrawn, and had Deputy Hogan's statement been withdrawn, I could have explained quite clearly what I meant. But I consider the fact that these things were not withdrawn, these and various other allegations, and no attempt was made to withdraw them; that Deputy Johnson utilised the opportunity for a further attack, for a rubbing-in, for a making more difficult of the whole situation. Had it not been for that, I could have explained quite clearly what was meant. As regards what has been indicated by the Ceann Comhairle, I do not think there is a Deputy in this House who had more respect for the late Vice-President than I had. I had for him a tremendous admiration. I made it quite clear yesterday, before the Deputies on the opposite benches left, that I accepted to the fullest possible extent the sincerity of their expressions of sympathy. I repeated that when they were absent. Never for a moment did I question it, nor do I question the horror with which they, like every other decent citizen of the State, heard of the assassination. Now, as to the actual statement, in so far as that statement—and I admit the actual words used—implied that the Labour Party were using the assassination of the Vice-President in order to make political capital out of it, that, as the Ceann Comhairle has explained, obviously was not what was in my mind. What was in my mind was explained by Deputy Gorey afterwards, that the Labour Party were making political capital out of the Bills which the Government felt compelled to introduce as the result of the assassination. Now, my expression of belief as to what the Labour Party felt as regards the Vice-President's death would have come immediately, even after the very inadequate withdrawals that came from the opposite benches, had it not been for the very unfortunate intervention of the leader of the Labour Party.